B&B Tobacconists, llc Beck's Ol' Limey Bastard

I smoked a bowl of that Limey Bastid this afternoon. Tasted really fresh. The flavor was good but I kept getting strong hints of very fresh oriental leaf. I think this one will perk up with some age. The Latakia was very subdued. Congrats to Beck and Barnes for putting together a nice smoke!

Pipestud

I don't think that B&B is marketing this as a Dunhill 965 match blend, however, if their not, they should be! To my knowledge it is only being distributed at 4 Noggins and it is being sold as a match blend there. Now with all that said, this is a very good tobacco. I was fortunate to be able to taste this, McClelland 965 match blend (925)and the real deal, Murray's 965 side by side. This comes far closer than McClelland's to 965. I find this to be very similar to 965. In some ways more full and a bit less sweet. It comes at the right moisture level and burns cleanly. I give this 3 1/2 stars instead of 4 because of a very slight soap taste. I actually think it tastes better than the Orlik 965. If you are looking for a replacement for Murray's 965, I suggest giving this a try. Recommended.

This blend did not blow me away in the way it has many others below. I found it to be well balanced, good tasting and easy to smoke. In this respect, I do recommend the blend as there was certainly nothing unpleasant about the smoking experience.

For me, however, what separates it is that it fails to excite me in the way that some other similar blends do. I would opt for some Rattray offerings (jock's in particular) and 965, orlik or Murray.

My personal experience is from a sample sent from a forum friend. It probably comprised of about five bowls. Admittedly, this is less than I would normally care to smoke to form a proper opinion, but usually on blends I really like I would have had some memorable moments in those first few bowls. It is for this reason and out of respect for several reviewers below whose opinions I respect, that I have added the third star.

Speaking of other reviews, I would most closely side with that of DK below. His words echo my experience in a much better way than I am able to convey.

I really like this tobacco. It's a fairly straightforward English blend with a good honest taste. Not much else to say about it, though, I do prefer Chipman Hill over it (it hits my palate right on). Both Beck's and Stokkebye's Balkan Supreme are in my bullpen. That's a great rotation! I recommend this tobacco.

Cheers!

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I smoked Murray's 965 for nearly 15 years, it was my "go to" smoke and I smoked it 90% of the time. I literally smoked hundreds of pounds of it (preferring the tins) and indeed I found it to be the perfect tobacco. Sadly, I have been on a 5 year search for something/anything that satisfied like that blend did. Further, and pardon my strong opinion here, but I am a little disgusted with those who have smoked the Murray blend and now smoke the Orlik junk, and dare mention the two in the same breath. While I am sure some might enjoy Ice Milk, please leave Haagen-Dazs out of the discussion!

That being said, I wish to offer my opinion as to the differences and similarities between Becks new contribution and Murray's 965. First, Murrays had a sweeter taste that I believe might have been captured, in part, by the unique use of a high quality Cyprian Latakia (I seem to recall 965's description always mentioning the use of a young or small Latakia plant). Becks I assume, uses standard Latakia (and precious little of it), and what sweetness there is in the blend is from the Virginias. Too, Murrays had a smoothness and nuttiness about the smoke. Again another assumption is that the feature came from a distinctive use of some Burley tobacco in that Cavendish mix. I believe Beck's to be the more typical Virginia Cavendish (and a cheaper tobacco too). None of this would matter if Beck's could have captured the overall taste of the Murray blend since that is what we seek/desire. Those of us who loved the Murray blend were appreciative of the lack of Orientals in the blend, as I believe that is part of what made 965 quite distinctive from many other English types. Beck's seems to use very little oriental tobacco (perhaps none) which should make it an appealing choice for many. However, Beck's uses precious little Latakia too. Overall, there is no rich creamy smoke to the Beck blend. I find a little stringent flavor too. Further I consider OLB to be more akin to "Early Morning Pipe", rather than "965" - and some of you may indeed like it for that quality. While I am not saying this is bad tobacco, it tastes like cheaper tobacco is used, and it's just not worthy for this 965 lover to keep around. However I will attempt to add some age to this blend and together with a little more Latakia, will see if I can improve it. My rating gives the Beck version a half star bump just for the admirable attempt at recreating such a superlative lost blend.

Footnote: I don't hold much hope of ever finding anything I enjoyed like 965 and it is said that Sir Alfred Dunhill himself preferred the older version of this classic (pre Murray). I find that I only smoke a bowl or so a day now (mostly Pease tobaccos) and rotate between several mixtures. In one pipe smoker's forum, I practically begged Greg Pease to turn his attention to recreating 965, and although he mentioned that it had indeed crossed his mind, he had many projects he wished to pusue as well being conflicted as to which 965 might garner the most appeal, the original Dunhill or the Murray blend. Lord how I wish he would just pick either one!

First of all, let me state that I am very happy to have been turned on to this tobacco by others. I do not feel that this is a direct substitute for Dunhill's MM 965; of course, it is said to be a good remake of the "earlier" 965, so perhaps that's why I feel so, as I have never smoked the early version. This blend reminds me more of the modern BS 759 version(s), from its "tin note" (bag note, actually, since it's sold in bulk only) and how it tastes as it's smoked. Two of my favorite blends are Dunhill 965 and BS 759 (modern versions), BTW. I can't wait to age some of this a bit and see what happens.

Many have compared this to Dunhill 965 but I did not think this to be nearly as smooth. As a matter of fact, I would say that Sutliff match 965 is a much smoother smoke and closer to Dunhill. Overall I thought that it was just Latakia overkill. I purchased the minimum of 2 ounces and may smoke it gone but will not go out of my way to obtain more. Recognizing that there are many who "seek" Latakia bombs I am going to rate it as Recommended.

A top shelf all-day smoke in a bulk bag? Heresy. (See Arango Balkan Supreme for more of this heresy.) There’s a nice nutty sweetness coming off the Cavendish, and some perfumed, not overwhelmingly smokey flavor from the Latakia. The Virginias are deep and earthy, not too bright, but there’s plenty of balance between tangy and rich flavors.

It’s been blended with an eye toward smoothness, and that comes through in style. It is sheet-of-glass smooth, makes Baby’s Bottom feel like 40-grit sandpaper. It is approved by the members of the Pipe Club of London because it is very good pipe tobacco. I shudder to think how much it would sell for if it came in a fancy tin.

It is almost a 4-star blend. There are better blends in this category but OLB will never disappoint.

I like this old style pipe tobacco. Like the new Dunhill 965 for the flavors but more subdued, less sweet and more balanced. The Cavendish and Latakia are less pronounced, the flavors while mild appeal to the palate in a indescribable way.

Virginia lover